Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Rain

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Rain

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. Negligible biographical content. With references like analcuties.com, this is unusually bad, even given the average low quality of porn sourcing. PROD removed without explanation or nontrivial article improvement by article creator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about if articles are deleted, despite the fact that there are many nominations, especially in important categories. What is the policy on that? There are some actresses like Aria Giovanni and Natalia Starr who have much fewer nominations but have acceptable guidelines for a Wikipedia article. Can there be clarity on the subject?Also the analcuties.com reference was only to source one of the people she had previously worked with who also has a Wikipedia page. Please suggest a better source instead that I can use as I am a new editor. -Akhila3151996 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep She is an up and coming performer. She's been nominated at age 19, awards will be forthcoming. Besides, awards alone don't make someone notable in any industry. She is becoming well known and popular. Hobbamock (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hobbamock, it isn't all about awards, but what part of WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG do you think she meets? Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have is that there are only three criteria and the one most folks reference are the awards. But even by the other two definitions, most performers would never qualify - so therefore they rely on the awards section. I say, so what! So what if they don't meet one of the three criteria? Are they still not known in the industry? Do they still not have fans? Are there not people that are possibly looking for just a little bit more information about them because they are curious? Nothing is ever more frustrating than to try and find easy information and it isn't there. Only because they haven't won an award or been fortunate enough to play a bit role in mainstream media. Hobbamock (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration. -Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. -Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.

Delete - As about as notable as my left foot!, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come on that's rubbish mate. You and your left foot would never be nominated for a award in a billion dollar industry... 58.106.231.148 (talk) 05:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source it to GNG standards or lose it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No convincingly better signs of a better applicable notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.